What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Stone]

Sucks for them, then, because that means we can't draw conclusions on them either.

Wrong. We can draw conclusions on them. We cannot draw definitive conclusions on them. That's the difference. We can still measure various degrees of likelihood, which responsible professional modern historians do all the time.

Stone

 

[tsig]

Wrong. We can draw conclusions on them. We cannot draw definitive conclusions on them. That's the difference. We can still measure various degrees of likelihood, which responsible professional modern historians do all the time.

Stone

What's the likelihood of being born of a virgin, poofing food into existence, walking on water and coming back from the dead?

 

[Craig B]

Sorry, but what you say is manifestly untrue. Jesus is most definitely described in the biblical writing as supernatural.

And he is most definitely described there as God's supernatural son in heaven.

That is certainly NOT a human being.

How many humans can you list who have been witnessed to walk on water and rise from the dead into the sky in front of hundreds of people?

The biblical writing is not describing a human person.

You are surely not being serious! The gospels do describe a human being, as I have shown. I have shown you that they do! And they locate him on earth during an earthly life. If you are saying otherwise, that he was always in Heaven, say it plainly!

Now I do not deny that they also show a supernatural being. And I note that this supernaturality becomes more pronounced as we proceed from earlier to later sources. But they also show a human being, with a family, made of flesh, eating, drinking, being baptised, giving sermons, being arrested and executed. They describe him thus:

Acts 2:22 Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

So a human being. Accredited by God, but himself not God.

Benny Hinn is endowed with supernatural powers by his followers. I no more believe Jesus had such powers than I believe Benny Hinn has them. But I believe in the existence of Benny Hinn.

Come now! Are you really saying that because stories attribute incredible deeds to people, then it is impossible for the people to exist? It is possible that they did exist, but did not do many of the things attributed to them. We have been through this with King Midas and the golden touch.

 

[smartcooky]

So we have plain references to a human Jesus, gradually and progressively overlaid with more and more strongly supernatural interpretations of his nature.

Embellishment, exaggeration, embiggenment; techniques used to great effect by writers of fiction, of fantasy, and the rewiters of history.

Stone insists that I must be a "flagrant bigot", that I exhibit "sheer ignorance of ancient history" and that I have "Texas-style pride of my own ignorance. He seems to insist this is so merely because my understanding of ancient history differs from his, and because I don't believe Jesus was a real historical person. Well to those accusations, all I can say in my defence is that I am not a young person, I am 57, a former teacher, and I am very well read in history (it being one of the subjects I have taught). I'm not making an appeal to experience here, just putting my cards on the table.

Obviously, since history is such a vast subject, I don't claim to have read everything, but what I have read tells me that even the more "minor" philosophers, rulers, and historians of ancient history were written about by their contemporaries, and that records do exist of writings that were contemporaneous with their life and times.

One of the philosophers that Stone suggests has no proof of historicity was Leukippos of Miletus. He was, in fact a contemporary of Zeno, but more importantly, Aristotle and Theophrastus later explicitly credited him with the invention of Atomism. The most famous among his lost works were titled Megas Diakosmos (The Great Order of the Universe or The great world-system) and Peri Nou (On Mind). While the historicity of Leukippos is contentious, unlike Jesus, there is at least some evidence for it. If you are really into ancient history, here is an interesting paper about this issue...

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/Leukippos%20tract.doc

Essentially what is really my truth is that I have NO FAITH. I don't believe in God and I think the Bible is a work of historical fiction that has little if any merit as a historical record; perhaps even less merit than anything written by Dan Brown. If that makes me a bigot in the eyes of Christians, then so be it.

But no matter how you slice it, no matter what your belief system is, it is a cold, hard fact that the gospels of Matthew, Mark & Luke ALL make Jesus out to be a person of great fame, who

- was followed by tens of thousands of people
- was brutally and very publicly executed.
- came back to life in a dramatic fashion.

That these issues are so public, demands that there ought to be some reference to, or record of him outside of the NT. There is none, and since I lack the faith to believe in something for which there is no evidence, it is impossible for a non-Christian person like me to accept the proposal that Jesus was a real person.

 

[maximara]

The approach to the evidence appears quite different between historical figures and HJ. IanS posted this interview of Huddlestun. In it he explains the evidence required for such historical figures. The independent evidence is not available for an HJ. But even Huddlestun casually says that HJ existed.

When we examine the data for many of these figures we find such evidence, for others the evidence is less convincing. If the evidence doesn't exist for a personage such as Boudicca then why do we accept she existed? Presumably because Tacitus and Cassius Dio recorded her actions in events that were independently verified by archaeological evidence of the destruction of Londonium at the accepted date. But if Dio just reported Tacitus and no evidence was found and we suspected that Tacitus told porkies and could be biased in what he reported we would be in exactly the same position as we are with HJ.

As I pointed out in Post 3039 (the people in question were Hippocrates, Leukippos, Hillel, Hannibal, Boadicea):

Boadicea--Ironically Tacitus himself would have been a 5 year old boy when she poisoned herself c60 CE. Furthermore, more his father in law Gnaeus Julius Agricola served under Gaius Suetonius Paulinus during the revolt. So Tacitus was not only an actual contemporary but he had access to Gaius Suetonius Paulinus' records and an actual eyewitness.

 

[Craig B]

... But no matter how you slice it, no matter what your belief system is, it is a cold, hard fact that the gospels of Matthew, Mark & Luke ALL make Jesus out to be a person of great fame, who

- was followed by tens of thousands of people
- was brutally and very publicly executed.
- came back to life in a dramatic fashion.

That these issues are so public, demands that there ought to be some reference to, or record of him outside of the NT. There is none, and since I lack the faith to believe in something for which there is no evidence, it is impossible for a non-Christian person like me to accept the proposal that Jesus was a real person.

Then you have good reason to deny that, for example, he came back to life. (Mark doesn't explicitly say he did, by the way; and Paul attributes to the companions of Jesus a visionary experience similar to his own, ie a private psychological event, not public interactions with a posthumously physically risen Jesus including a fish barbecue on the shores of the Sea of Galilee!) And it may be the case that there was no such person, as you state. But it is not good reasoning to say:

It is stated of x that he came back to life after he was executed
X did not come back to life
It follows therefore that x was never executed.

It is stated of Midas that what he touched turned to gold, and he grew ears like a donkey.
Neither of these things is true.
Therefore Midas never existed.

And the following is correctly denied by Voltaire in his studies of Pascal's works:

It is stated in the Iliad that the gods intervened to ensure a Greek victory in the Trojan War.
There are no such gods
Therefore there was no such war.

 

[Stone]

One of the philosophers that Stone suggests has no proof of historicity was Leukippos of Miletus

I suggest NO SUCH THING, and you know it. I said that FIGURES LIKE LEUKIPPOS have the same sparse data attached to them as does Jesus the rabbi. That is NOT saying that such figures have no proof of historicity. It IS suggesting that however you treat FIGURES LIKE LEUKIPPOS or the other multiple figures I cited, that treatment and the treatment given Jesus the rabbi should be roughly comparable. If you photoshop Jesus the rabbi out of history, then you should do the same with Leukippos, Democritus, Pythagoras and dozens of other thinkers who like Jesus the rabbi were thinkers and civilians with sparse data to their name. Either paint them all out or parse the degree of likelihood for their historical reality as all roughly comparable. Special INCONSISTENT dismissal of one such figure, be he Jesus or Thales or whoever, without comparable treatment of the others, reveals an utter lack of integrity.

Stone

 

[ddt]

Boadicea--Ironically Tacitus himself would have been a 5 year old boy when she poisoned herself c60 CE. Furthermore, more his father in law Gnaeus Julius Agricola served under Gaius Suetonius Paulinus during the revolt. So Tacitus was not only an actual contemporary but he had access to Gaius Suetonius Paulinus' records and an actual eyewitness.

Not to mention that Tacitus also wrote an extensive biography of his father-in-law Agricola. And well, we've got that burn layer at Londinium to account for.

It is stated in the Iliad that the gods intervened to ensure a Greek victory in the Trojan War.
There are no such gods
Therefore there was no such war.

Aren't you skipping a few steps?

Strip away the supernatural from the Iliad, and you still have a bloody war. And a geographical description that matches the plain of Troas. And a burn layer at Troy VIIa. And other archaeological objects that correspond with descriptions in the Iliad. And in fact, the Iliad led Schliemann to dig at Hissarlik and other places like Mycenae and Pylos and find that corresponding evidence.

I don't think anyone ever has managed to take the NT and successfully dig for, say, the mount or the plain Jesus preached on. On the contrary, Nazareth turns out to have been a hamlet that couldn't support the synagogue Luke claims it had.

When you strip away the supernatural from the NT, you have a man who walked about, said some things and got nailed. The oldest writings about him, Paul, say virtually nothing about his teachings (IIRC, only the Eucharist/Last Supper). Mark has the geography wrong. The sayings could easily come from multiple sources over time. There is, AFAIK, no agreement on any core of sayings that is authentic Jesus.

In other words, the evidence for a Trojan War to me seems bigger than that for a real-in-the-flesh Jesus. However, nobody goes about claiming that the issue of the Trojan War is settled. But then, there also aren't enough claimed pieces of the Trojan Horse going around to build a Spanish Armada, unlike with Jesus' cross. I can't escape the strong impression there's a common cause.

 

[IanS]

You are surely not being serious! The gospels do describe a human being, as I have shown. I have shown you that they do! And they locate him on earth during an earthly life. If you are saying otherwise, that he was always in Heaven, say it plainly!

Now I do not deny that they also show a supernatural being. And I note that this supernaturality becomes more pronounced as we proceed from earlier to later sources. But they also show a human being, with a family, made of flesh, eating, drinking, being baptised, giving sermons, being arrested and executed. They describe him thus: So a human being. Accredited by God, but himself not God.

Benny Hinn is endowed with supernatural powers by his followers. I no more believe Jesus had such powers than I believe Benny Hinn has them. But I believe in the existence of Benny Hinn.

Come now! Are you really saying that because stories attribute incredible deeds to people, then it is impossible for the people to exist? It is possible that they did exist, but did not do many of the things attributed to them. We have been through this with King Midas and the golden touch.

Am I being serious? You must be joking. Of course I'm being serious. It's absolutely obvious and totally undeniable that the biblical writing describes Jesus as a supernatural figure.

What you are doing is attempting to pass off a very common old canard trotted out regularly by people who insist on a real HJ, by saying that because this supernatural figure was said to have walked about on earth in human form, spoken to people, sat down to eat with them etc., that makes him a perfectly normal human person .... it most certainly does not lol.

You are trying to have it both ways. Trying to have your cake and eat it, by saying that Jesus was both a normal human and simultaneously also a supernatural heavenly being.

But if he was supernatural, as he most certainly was, then any normal activities of walking and talking etc are completely irrelevant - the overriding fact is that he was described as the supernatural son of god from a place called heaven.

This may not be the perfect analogy, and others here can probably think of better examples, but just think of characters like Superman, or Dracula, or various stories about the Devil ... they all appear amongst the people in seemingly normal looking human form, they talk to people and engage in all sorts of normal human activities, but they are nevertheless most definitely supernatural. And what makes them of any importance at all is their supernatural nature ... Superman flies and has supernatural strength etc., Dracula cheats death for thousands of years & turns into a bat flying in the air, the Devil often appears in stories looking like a friendly harmless old man trying to win the affection of ordinary individuals, helping them and walking with them etc., but he is most definitely not the human figure he appears to be. No doubt all manner of pre-biblical gods were described in similar ways, appearing on earth in human form to interact with people in seemingly normal human ways, whilst still performing all the completely non-human feats of a supernatural figure who actually hails from heaven.

Jesus is in that sort of category of a supernatural god, who really resides for eternity in heaven, but who visits the earth at that biblical time to warn Gods special favoured Jewish people of the impending day of final terrible judgement. He appears in human form to interact with the people and share in what they do, but he quickly reveals that he is actually the supernatural Son of God who walks on water etc. and finally rises from the dead in full view of everyone to hover in the skies before propelling himself through the clouds into heaven.

That is NOT a normal human being.

And what makes Jesus important, is not the fact that he walked about and spoke to anyone. The only thing that makes him important or memorable, is his constant supernatural nature which reveals him as the divine son of god.

 

[smartcooky]

I suggest NO SUCH THING, and you know it. I said that FIGURES LIKE LEUKIPPOS have the same sparse data attached to them as does Jesus the rabbi. That is NOT saying that such figures have no proof of historicity. It IS suggesting that however you treat FIGURES LIKE LEUKIPPOS or the other multiple figures I cited, that treatment and the treatment given Jesus the rabbi should be roughly comparable. If you photoshop Jesus the rabbi out of history, then you should do the same with Leukippos, Democritus, Pythagoras and dozens of other thinkers who like Jesus the rabbi were thinkers and civilians with sparse data to their name. Either paint them all out or parse the degree of likelihood for their historical reality as all roughly comparable. Special INCONSISTENT dismissal of one such figure, be he Jesus or Thales or whoever, without comparable treatment of the others, reveals an utter lack of integrity.

Stone

Now YOU are misrepresenting my points.

I have no desire to try proving the non-existence of Jesus, and even if I did, such a thing is not possible anyway, by definition (it that would be trying to prove a negative).

Jesus may well have existed, but there is a total absence of any evidence in support of that proposition. I'm not talking about a sparsity of evidence as there is for Leukippos, Democritus, Pythagoras and the other figures you cited, I'm talking about a complete and utter lack of evidence.

I am treating the two the same. There is evidence that Leukippos really existed, there is evidence that Democritus really existed and there is evidence that Pythagoras really existed, but the is not one single iota, not a smidgeon, not a skerrick of evidence that Jesus did, none!

ALL of our "information" about the existence of Jesus comes from a single, conflicting, unreliable and completely anonymous source written many years after his supposed life and times. The Gospels were not written by the people they are attributed to, they were written by unknown authors who based their writings on hearsay and stories related to them by multiple anonymous sources. If I were to submit a thesis or a paper using this standard of sourcing as my references, I would be laughed out of the department, and yet that is exactly what Christians accept every day.

 

[pakeha]

First things first!
HHappy birthday, ddt.

Well, for starters, everything in the core nexus of Q sayings -- and even in Mark -- that's heard from Jesus himself seems directed solely at the Jewish community. The very notion that Gentiles could ever supersede the Jewish community doesn't even emerge until Paul. So that Gentile-directed aspect of your writer's argument is very tenuous -- and anachronistic -- indeed.

However, the notion that the Jewish powers-that-be as a group are being trashed by Jesus repeatedly is not that off. He does that constantly and in the earliest textual stratum. What's different is that there's no trace of the classic Gentile-vs.-Jew syndrome in this stratum. Instead, it's the honest Jew in the street against the Vichy style of the Jewish authorities accommodating the Roman jackboot. Jew versus Gentile instead is more Paul's and the GJohn's speed.

The very sentiment "Love your enemies" itself may not necessarily be exclusively altruistic but it doesn't strike me as having a dark agenda either. Instead, it's sometimes struck me as humorous: a kind of "You're now in good company" wisecrack.

The altruistic cannot be discarded entirely either: In the same stratum as "Love your enemies" after all, we also have sentiments like "If they ask you for your ___, give them your ______ too." That reflects a level of pro-active solicitude for the "other" in addition that is not reflected in your writer's interpretation. Purely for its context then -- while a degree of irony cannot be ruled out -- "Love your enemies" seems too much a of piece with the remark about tendering one's pieces of clothing to be simply a case of preening oneself on one's martyrdom and who one's enemies are. Instead, there is just too much additional concern expressed for the actual welfare of one's enemies themselves for this all to be that simple.

Cheers,

Stone

Thanks for the reply, Stone.
I'm reading up on the stratum approach to Mark and the Q sources.
I'm a bit puzzled by the 'dark agenda' reference, though.

This is illustrative of the sort of pitfalls awaiting those who don't know which sayings show the most colloquial style and stem from the earliest stratum. Of course, in your case, you made a good-faith effort to acquire this information, which was undercut by the rules of this forum referencing "information overload". ...(snipped for space)...
Furthermore, the earliest mss. for GMark -- the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus -- do not even have the passage you quote at the end. They end Chap. 16 with the fleeing of the women from the empty tomb at Verse 8 instead. So everything following that is evidently added in much later and is not original to the text.

Stone

"...you made a good-faith effort to acquire this information, which was undercut by the rules of this forum referencing "information overload". ..."

How was I undercut?
Anyway, you're quite right about the later addition of the passage I quoted, of course.

Do you think those references I quoted here to 'their ancestors' and 'them'
are later additions to Jesus original meaning?

"Luke 6:22-23 NIV
Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

Luke 6:26
Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

Matthew 5:11-12
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. "


Do the Pauline Epistles have priority over Q?
Does the Gospel of Thomas have priority over Q?

 

[DOC]

...Jesus may well have existed, but there is a total absence of any evidence in support of that proposition.

Then why does well known skeptic Bart Ehrman say "Jesus certainly existed" in his latest book, and has basically said he doesn't know of any biblical academic who works at a major university who doesn't think the historical Jesus existed.

Historical evidence is evidence. I think what you are talking about is things like photographs of Jesus, his body, etc.. No there is none of that, but there is plenty of historical evidence and thus the statement by Bart Ehrman.

Remember, we get almost all of our information about Alexander the Great (the man who conquered Jerusalem and much of the known world) from works written over 300 years after his death and no one questions his existence.

 

[Craig B]

... And what makes Jesus important, is not the fact that he walked about and spoke to anyone. The only thing that makes him important or memorable, is his constant supernatural nature which reveals him as the divine son of god.

That is not the issue. It is perfectly possible for a person not in fact to have been important, but to become the focus for exaggerated tales, and thus to acquire importance posthumously. And stop smuggling concepts into your discourse. The Synoptics do not say that Jesus was "divine", and he is not made to claim that of himself in the sayings they attribute to him. And I have shown with reference to appropriate texts that the concept of son of god is applied to non divine figures of the House of David, affiliation to which is a claim made for Jesus in the later Synoptics and by Paul at Romans 1:3.

You have made all kinds of statements about Jesus being in the category of such and such, whatever that may mean, and resurrecting in the full view of everyone, which he is nowhere stated to do; and Mark does not say he came from a place called Heaven, and has left no account of his being hoisted back to such a place.

Thus, I do not "trot out old canards" but I am attempting to engage in a serious discussion. You have said: "This is a serious discussion, not a slanging match". Regrettably the accusation that people are trotting out old canards looks a bit like "slanging" to me, and I have no enthusiasm for it.

 

[IanS]

And it may be the case that there was no such person, as you state. But it is not good reasoning to say:

It is stated of x that he came back to life after he was executed
X did not come back to life
It follows therefore that x was never executed never came back from the dead after execution.

(my strike-through alteration in the above quote)

It is not being claimed that the reason Jesus was fictional was because people told an untrue story of him rising from the dead after execution. That is NOT, and never has been suggested by anyone here, as the reason why the biblical Jesus is fictional.

If you want to put it more accurately in your three line form as above, then you have to say something more like -

* It is stated that Jesus came back to life after he was executed
* He could not have come back to life after lethal execution
* It follows therefore that the story is untrue.

 

[pakeha]

Then why does well known skeptic Bart Ehrman say "Jesus certainly existed" in his latest book, and has basically said he doesn't know of any biblical academic who works at a major university who doesn't think the historical Jesus existed.

Historical evidence is evidence. I think what you are talking about is things like photographs of Jesus, his body, etc.. No there is none of that, but there is plenty of historical evidence and thus the statement by Bart Ehrman.

Remember, we get almost all of our information about Alexander the Great (the man who conquered Jerusalem and much of the known world) from works written over 300 years after his death and no one questions his existence.

That's a very good question, DOC.
Why does Ehrman say "Jesus certainly existed"?
Could you give us a rundown on his evidence, please?

Alexander the Great?
Again?
Do the Babylonian chronicles count as written evidence?
http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/bchp-alexander/alexander_01.html

 

[IanS]

That is not the issue. It is perfectly possible for a person not in fact to have been important, but to become the focus for exaggerated tales, and thus to acquire importance posthumously.

Of course it's quite possible for real people to later become the focus of exaggerated tales. But the issue here is whether or not that was the case with Jesus. And what this thread has very clearly shown, is that there is no evidence of Jesus ever existing!

And stop smuggling concepts into your discourse. The Synoptics do not say that Jesus was "divine", and he is not made to claim that of himself in the sayings they attribute to him. And I have shown with reference to appropriate texts that the concept of son of god is applied to non divine figures of the House of David, affiliation to which is a claim made for Jesus in the later Synoptics and by Paul at Romans 1:3.

I am not smuggling anything lol.

Jesus is described as a divine being. That means - a supernatural scion of a supernatural god in heaven.

And by the way, iirc, in his supposed trial, Jesus does in fact answer to say that he is the messiah of God.

The fact that anyone else may at earlier times have also been called the "son of god" is not relevant here. The relevance here is that Jesus was apparently, according to the gospels, believed to be the actual Son of a god in heaven.

You have made all kinds of statements about Jesus being in the category of such and such, whatever that may mean, and resurrecting in the full view of everyone, which he is nowhere stated to do; and Mark does not say he came from a place called Heaven, and has left no account of his being hoisted back to such a place.

What it means is that he is described in the category of a god-like supernatural figure from heaven. That's what it means!

And as you must well know, in Paul's letters Jesus is said to have appeared after death to more than 500 people at once!

I don't care whether Mark mentions "heaven" or not. It's not arguable, that Jesus is described as someone who resides in heaven with his father God, and that he is expected one day to return to earth. Jesus was quite clearly being described as the messiah from God's heaven.

Thus, I do not "trot out old canards" but I am attempting to engage in a serious discussion. You have said: "This is a serious discussion, not a slanging match". Regrettably the accusation that people are trotting out old canards looks a bit like "slanging" to me, and I have no enthusiasm for it.

It is certainly a commonly employed old canard of HJ believers to trot out the claim that we can remove from the biblical Jesus all the impossible supernatural stuff and just be left with someone who walks & talks etc., and it has been trotted out countless times earlier in this thread.

If you attempt to make that same argument for a real Jesus, as you in fact have, then you are following that well worn formula for creating a different Jesus from the supernatural figure we have from the bible … and that is our only source for any Jesus figure - that IS Jesus.

 

[Belz...]

The biblical writing is not describing a human person.

I was under the impression that they described a human person with divine powers.

 

[Craig B]

(my strike-through alteration in the above quote)

It is not being claimed that the reason Jesus was fictional was because people told an untrue story of him rising from the dead after execution. That is NOT, and never has been suggested by anyone here, as the reason why the biblical Jesus is fictional.

If you want to put it more accurately in your three line form as above, then you have to say something more like -

* It is stated that Jesus came back to life after he was executed
* He could not have come back to life after lethal execution
* It follows therefore that the story is untrue.

That reasoning is valid. But it is in effect being stated that the supernatural elements make Jesus a divine figure residing in Heaven. Such a person could not have existed in the sense in which a historical Jesus might be defined. Therefore no Jesus existed. That is being argued. And the suggestion that Jesus could have existed as a non supernatural being is dismissed as an old canard being trotted it by the HJ believers. That is being said too. ETA In for example the last para of your #4256. If, for "old canard", we may read "well known formula".

 

[Belz...]

Wrong. We can draw conclusions on them. We cannot draw definitive conclusions on them. That's the difference.

I'm well aware that you think you can, but if this thread has demonstrated anything, it's that the evidence is monstrously weak. Yet you still want to conclude that Jesus existed, and I wonder why.

If you found an old piece of paper in a house built in the 90s, that said that during the Nixon era, there was a smart woman named Alice and that she's dead now, could you confidently conclude tha this woman existed ? Without an author, or any sort of reference to who we're talking about, how do you know it's not a piece of fiction ?

As I said before, I'm perfectly happy admitting that I don't know whether or not Jesus or many other historical figures existed, if the evidence isn't strong enough.

 

[Belz...]

Embellishment, exaggeration, embiggenment; techniques used to great effect by writers of fiction, of fantasy, and the rewiters of history.

We need not look further than Superman, who was altered, embellished, overpowered and retconned throughout the decades to meet the needs of a story, or to compensate for previous mistakes. Why would they say all that unless Superman really existed in the recent past, right ?